Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three Issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for baby product company Kit & Kin, www.kitandkin.com, seen on 27 August 2025, featured a webpage dedicated to their “Eco nappies & wipes” range of products. Text stated, “PROTECTING YOUR WORLD, NATURALLY” […] “High performance eco nappies […] better for our world, every pack you purchase gives back by protecting acres of rainforest”. Further down the page were images of Kit & Kin’s nappies, which were accompanied by the claim “sustainable”.
A listing for “eco nappies” included the claim “Sustainable” and, alongside an image of the nappy, stated, “Made from sustainable, plant-based materials”. A further listing for “biodegradable baby wipes” stated, “99% water, Biodegradable, 0% plastic ”. Text on both listings stated “Protecting your world, naturally […] Planet-conscious. Protecting our future”.
Issue
Procter and Gamble UK challenged whether:
- the ad gave a misleading impression of the environmental impact of Kit & Kin’s products;
- the claims “Sustainable”, and “Made from sustainable […] materials” were misleading; and
- the claim “Biodegradable” was misleading.
Response
1. & 2. Kit & Kin Ltd said the claims were a reference to the fact the products contained viscose and were produced in a ‘carbon neutral’ factory, and they held certification in that regard. They said the materials used to make the top and back sheets of their nappies were Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified, and that they held certifications showing the content of those sheets. They also said they held certification relating to the recyclability of some packaging. They said that environmental claims made in the ad were qualified with contextual information regarding ingredients and materials used, and any relevant certifications. The listings also set out which materials were plant-derived, that the wood pulp used was FSC-certified, and that the packaging was recyclable.
Kit & Kin said the claims “Protecting Your World”, “better for our world”, and “sustainable” referred to – the composition of their products; their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and charitable work and partnership with the World Land Trust; their B-Corp and Soil Association certifications; and the fact their products had been certified as hypoallergenic. They explained the claims were made in relation to their products rather than their business model. They had removed the claim “better for our world” following receipt of the complaint from the ASA.
3. Kit & Kin provided two manufacturer statements, and an independent test report and certificate, in support of the claim.
Assessment
The CAP Code required that the basis and meaning of environmental claims, and comparative environmental claims, must be clear, and that absolute environmental claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation.
1. Upheld
The webpage, which was for Kit & Kin’s “Eco nappies & wipes” range, stated the advertised range was “better for our world”, and claimed “every pack you purchase gives back by protecting acres of rainforest”. The page, and the listings for nappies and baby wipes to which it linked, included the claim “Protecting Your World, Naturally”. Further text on the listings stated, “Planet-conscious. Protecting our future”.
The ASA considered consumers would interpret the claim “eco” as meaning the product about which it was made was either beneficial for, or at least not detrimental to, the environment. The overall impression of the ad was that protecting the environment for future generations was key to Kit & Kin’s business activities, and that by purchasing the advertised nappies and baby wipes from Kit & Kin, consumers could contribute to that effort, including through an initiative to protect acres of rainforest. We considered that, in that context, “eco” was an absolute claim the nappies and baby wipes would cause no environmental harm throughout their life cycle.
Kit & Kin had explained that they were certified by the B Corporation, which set standards relating to businesses’ social and environmental impact. They had referred to the composition of their products, which used Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified paper, their hypoallergenic nature, and the fact they were made in a ‘carbon neutral’ factory. In relation to protecting the rainforest, we understood Kit & Kin had partnered with the World Land Trust, a charity whose aim was to protect rainforests through land acquisition using funds from private donors. However, that information had not been included in the ad listings, and in any case did not support the claim “protecting the environment”. Furthermore, we had not seen evidence the products would cause no environmental damage across their life cycle.
The claim “better for our world”, was comparative. However, in the absence of further information setting out its basis, it was unclear whether that comparison was against Kit & Kin’s previous products or against competitors’ products.
The ad had not explained the basis of the environmental claims, and comparative claim, made. Additionally, we had not seen adequate evidence to support the environmental claims made in the ad as they were likely to be understood. We therefore concluded it had given a misleading impression of the advertised products’ environmental impact.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 11.1, 11.3, and 11.4 (Environmental claims).
2. Upheld
The webpage for the “Eco nappies & wipes” range included the claim “sustainable” under images of a number of products, and on a listing for “eco nappies”. That listing also stated “Made from sustainable, plant-based materials”.
We understood Kit & Kin had intended the claims as referring to, among other things, the fact a component of the nappies was viscose, they were made in a ‘carbon neutral’ factory from FSC-approved materials, and that they were hypoallergenic. However, the claims were not qualified with that information. In that context, we considered the claims “sustainable” and “sustainable plant-based materials” were absolute claims about both the nappies and the materials from which they were made, and so expected to see evidence relating to the full life cycle of each.
We acknowledged Kit & Kin had taken some steps to reduce the environmental impact of their products. However, the nappies used plastic-based Velcro tabs and leg cuffs, and we understood the extraction of raw materials and subsequent processing in order to produce those plastics, and their breakdown after disposal, had a negative impact on the environment.
The basis of the claims had not been made clear, and we had not seen evidence based on the full life cycle of the products to support the absolute claims “sustainable” and “sustainable plant-based materials”. We therefore concluded the claims were likely to mislead.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 11.1, 11.3, and 11.4 (Environmental claims).
3. Upheld
We considered consumers were likely to understand the claim “biodegradable baby wipes” to mean the wipes in their entirety would fully biodegrade and that no byproducts, or environmentally harmful residue, would remain. In addition, they would understand the wipes would biodegrade more quickly than their plastic equivalent , and that biodegradation would occur in all conditions, locations, and states of use in which they might be responsibly disposed. The wipes comprised viscose fibre, to which water and other ingredients had been added, and we understood those ingredients were inextricable from one another. We therefore expected to see evidence relating to the wipes as a whole.
The evidence provided by Kit & Kin showed the viscose used in the baby wipes would biodegrade into carbon dioxide in home composting conditions, at a temperature of 28 degrees Celsius, and in soil and in marine environments. It also showed the material complied with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 14855 which required 90% biodegradation within a period of six months. A laboratory report showed the viscose used in the advertised wipes fully biodegraded after 45 days. The evidence did not show the wipes as a whole would biodegrade in real world conditions in the way consumers would expect, and in comparison to plastic-based alternatives. Additionally, the ad had not included information about where the wipes should be placed to biodegrade, anything that might interfere with that process (such as contamination by organic matter), or the time the wipes would take to fully biodegrade. It had also not included information about any by-products of the biodegradation process, or of any negative environmental impact they might have.
We had not seen evidence the wipes as a whole would breakdown in the way consumers would have understood from the ad. The ad had also not included information relating to the method of disposal, length of time biodegradation would take, or any potential by-products. We therefore concluded the claim was likely to mislead.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 11.1, and 11.2 (Environmental claims).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form assessed. We told Kit & Kin Ltd to ensure the basis of environmental claims, and comparative claims, was clear and did not give a misleading impression of their products’ environmental impact. We also told them to ensure they held robust substantiation to support them.
